a blog about news and politics by steve janke
 

Ward Churchill story races to a conclusion

The story of Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor facing dismissal for academic fraud, is quickly coming to a conclusion. In 30 days, a decision will be taken.




Ward Churchill, of course, is best known for calling the 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns", a reference to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official who organized the mass deportation of Jews and other undesirables to extermination camps from throughout Nazi-occupied Europe. In the course of the uproar that followed, it was discovered that his academic research was seriously flawed, with "findings of falsification, fabrication, plagiarizing, improper reporting of results, and failing to follow standard rules that apply to author names on publications".

The allegation has been made that the evaluation of his work was prompted by a desire to take revenge on Churchill for his comments after 9/11. In a sense, those allegations are true. His actions did generate specific interest in the body of his work. But if the findings are true, then he is guilty of serious academic misconduct. Many people point out that if the authorities are taking revenge on him, they are only able to do so because of Churchill's sloppy work.

In any case, we'll learn about Ward Churchill's fate soon enough:

Dismissal hearings for University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill were held this past week. Ward Churchill appeared before the Privilege and Tenure Committee with many witnesses speaking in his behalf. The committee will have 30 days to issue its findings to CU president Hank Brown. Brown will weigh the findings and make a recommendation to the Board of Regents.

The rest of the article lists groups and associations who think Churchill is being ill treated, such as the Emergeny Summit of Scholars and Activists. The unifying theme is that academic freedom is being suppressed. President Brown will be considering the charges of academic misconduct, separate from the question of whether he abused his academic freedom, and Churchill as not been successful in defending himself against these misconduct charges in the past. In just element of the investigation, the findings were quite unambiguous:

The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill had plagiarized the work of Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, and republished it in a book edited by his wife Annette Jaimes. The previous year, Churchill had edited his own book of collected essays, which had included Cohen’s chapter on fishing rights. Churchill then solicited Cohen’s essay for republication in his wife’s book. Cohen refused to grant Churchill and Jaimes permission to republish the essay.

In Jaimes’ book, the essay in question is attributed to the "Institute for Natural Progress," the same pseudonym under which Churchill had previously published the disputed "Water Plot" essay. In the back matter, Jaimes writes that Churchill "assumed the lead role in preparing" the essay; he characterized his role as similar to a newspaper’s "rewrite man," who takes materials gathered by others and works them into a final version for publication.

After the Jaimes book was published, Cohen asked lawyers at her university to assess her rights in the matter. An internal Dalhousie University report concluded that "[t]he article … is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said, summarizing the report's findings in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News.

Churchill says that he has not committed plagiarism because he never said he wrote the essay. The CU investigative committee found Churchill's defense "implausible," observing that Churchill did claim authorship of the essay in his official Faculty Report of Professional Activity for the year 1991, followed by the parenthetical notation "for the Institute for Natural Progress." The committee concluded that Churchill's involvement in plagiarizing Cohen's essay constitutes an act of research misconduct.

There were multiple allegations, and the committee found Churchill guilty of four counts of willful and deliberate plagiarism.

Churchill has been suspended, with pay, since June 2006. It would seem that his paycheques might stop arriving before the end of February. Stay tuned.


Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary


Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
 Ward Churchill  University of Colorado  Fay Cohen  Annette Jaimes  Dalhousie University  Nova Scotia  Hank Brown 


Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!


Trackbacks
URI: http://haloscan.com/tb/agwnblog/213482

Trackback Submission Form



 

Comments

Look out. If he FINALLY gets thrown out of Colorado, he might head north.

Posted by: iowavette at January 26, 2007 03:37 PM



Might?????? ...

DOCUMENTARY: Ward Churchill and Roland Chrisjohn will be in Halifax tomorrow to launch a new Audio-Documentary on First Nations and Colonialism in Canada called “Hoping Against Hope”. Starts at 6:30 p.m. in the Ondaatje Auditorium, Marion McCain Bldg., 6135 University Avenue.

http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=6948&sc=97

Posted by: c_B at January 26, 2007 05:31 PM



Uh what is this post about?

It is a rambling diatribe of hatred equal to the alleged criminal mentioned.

But I'm confused here... what did he do wrong? I mean you can get any academic on plagarism and you know that? You can screw any student on plagerism easily.

It is like trying to take down a cop for taking out their gun too many times.

Easy kids stuff.

This is retribution because those people that ran 911 operation want a lid kept on it and they don't like people prying into it.

Your post doesn't even mention what his crime was.. why not?

Better to not talk about it?

Posted by: real conservative at January 26, 2007 07:41 PM



realconservative: How about renaming yourself realdumba**?

Plagiarism is very serious and please don't allege that "you can get any academic on plagarism and you know that..." That's a preposterous statement.

You ARE confused: "What did he [Ward Churchill] do wrong?" He lied, real, he lied.

Maybe in your universe that's all in a day's work, but not in mine, not in most people's, and certainly not in the lives of the professors I know.

As for your comment, "Your [SJ's] post doesn't even mention what his crime was.. why not?"

Here it is, AGAIN. What're you on, real? Lost your glasses?

[begin quote]

The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill had plagiarized the work of Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, and republished it in a book edited by his wife Annette Jaimes....After the Jaimes book was published, Cohen asked lawyers at her university to assess her rights in the matter. An internal Dalhousie University report concluded that "[t]he article … is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism"... Churchill says that he has not committed plagiarism because he never said he wrote the essay. The CU investigative committee found Churchill's defense "implausible," observing that Churchill did claim authorship of the essay in his official Faculty Report of Professional Activity for the year 1991, followed by the parenthetical notation "for the Institute for Natural Progress." The committee concluded that Churchill's involvement in plagiarizing Cohen's essay constitutes an act of research misconduct.

[end quote]

There you have it, real; Ward Churchill's plagairism is "an act of research misconduct." You need be confused no more: What he did wrong was lie by plagiarizing another professor's work, then denying it. This constitutes "research misconduct." He's been caught red-handed. Too bad he had to call attention to himself back in 2001...

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 27, 2007 11:09 PM